Quote:
|
This case hardly justifies arming and training all or most civilians. Not in the least
|
Once again, sweeping statements and conclusions like the one above shows how the anti gunners must resort to using extremes in an attempt to marginalize the effectiveness and the deterrence of people who keep and carry firearms.
I never wrote that this case justifies "
arming and training all or most civillians". What I write is that Americans who qualify have the right to keep and carry firearms. If carrying means in a church, a school, or a restaurant, so be it. Other people around those who are armed usually do not know who is armed, and who isn't armed, because permits to carry require the firearms be concealed. This alone can be a deterrent to someone who may be considering a massacre. On the other hand, if this same person who is considering a massacre knows most, if not all of the people he/she targets, don't have firearms, he/she will be more emboldened to carry out his/her plan of attack. All citizens, not even most citizens, do not need to be armed in order for the deterrence to be effective. All that needs to be generally understood is that some citizens may be armed and ready to take out any perp who is ready to commit a crime with a firearm.
.